In archaeological site KV-5, in Egypt's Valley of the Kings, archaeologist Kent Weeks found a bashed-in skull which, he believes, might be that of Amenhirkhepeshef, the first-born son of Rameses II. The latter is believed by many to be the hard-hearted pharaoh in the Bible's account of the Exodus from Egypt.

The speculative problem the discovery presents is this: if, indeed, the skull is that of Amenhirkhepeshef, and if, indeed, Amenhirkhepeshef was the first-born son of Rameses II, and if, indeed, Rameses II was the pharaoh with whom Moses contested, then the bashed-in skull conflicts with the story that we Jews tell at our Passover seders about the "angel of death" passing over the homes of the Egyptians and killing their first-born sons—the tenth, and final, plague to convince the Egyptians to "let our people go."

Exodus 12:29-30, as rendered in the Stone Tanach, tells us: "It was at midnight that Hashem smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive in the dungeon, and every firstborn animal. Pharaoh rose up at midnight, he and all his servants and all Egypt, and there was a great outcry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was no corpse."

In a footnote, the Stone Tanach, edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, informs us that "the Egyptian firstborn died because they had persecuted the Jews; those of the captives died because they enjoyed Jewish suffering, or so that they would not be able to claim that their idols had protected them.  Pharaoh, a firstborn, was spared, to tell all the world about God's greatness."

What we don't know, from either the text or the footnote, is in what manner God "smote" the firstborn. But, our sense of it, from the writing that the deaths occurred at midnight, is that they died peacefully in their sleep. The bashed-in skull, if it is Amenhirkhepeshef's, obviously conflicts with that notion.

The Discovery Channel showed how the skull was cleaned, measured, and digitally photographed by forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkinson and an assistant, and how the photos were then sent to another anthropologist, Prof. Susan Black, for an independent evaluation. Black concluded that the person in question was about 30 years old.  Based on the distances between nose and mouth, and between other features of the face, she concluded that the skull belonged to someone who was related to Rameses II, whose mummy  is at the Cairo Museum. DNA testing is pending, we are informed. 

The Discovery Channel speculates that perhaps it was Amenhirkhepeshef, not Rameses II who chased the Hebrews to the sea. As the eldest son of the Pharaoh, Amenhirkhepeshef was the general of his armies. Perhaps, he died in the battle.  Perhaps,  the Reed Sea was a marsh, and instead of being swallowed up by waters, the Egyptian charioteers became stuck in the marsh and were ambushed by the Israelites.  Could the skull found in tomb K-5 in the Valley of the Kings been  brought back by his grieving father for burial?  

Despite what Rabbi Scherman said about pharaoh being spared so that he could glorify God, did pharaoh instead cover up all that had happened? The Discovery Channel suggests this is what occurred. As "evidence" that this scenario is at least a possibility, it reviewed  inscriptions about the earlier Battle of Kadesh, in Syria, in which the defending Hittites bested the invading Egyptian forces. If you were to base your knowledge of that battle on what is written about it on the tombs, you'd think that the Egyptians had won.  

Rameses, according to the Discovery Channel's presentation, would have been likely to cover up the "slave revolt" led by Moses.  In other speculation, the Discovery Channel suggested that Moses might have been an Egyptian-born younger son of pharaoh, who was attracted to a monotheistic "cult" which the pharaoh had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out.  As for the first nine plagues, it suggested, they could have resulted from the Nile River being polluted by red earth washed down the Nile River system from Ethiopia.  The pollution would have driven the frogs from the river, leading to an increase in the number of flies, lice, and so forth.

I can't help but wonder, if the Discovery Channel rejects the central premise of the Exodus account—that this was the unfolding of God's will—why try to account for other parts of the story, such as the plagues or the parting of the sea?  Besides the biblical account, there is no other historical record on which to base the belief that any of these events occurred. Why pick and choose? —Donald H. Harrison